Railway company fined over tresspasser death

[Prairie_5542]

What are your views about this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-20356524

Should the company have been fined?

Railway firm fined £180,000 after 13-year-old electrocuted


A railway company has been fined £180,000 for health and safety breaches after a 13-year-old was electrocuted in a disused Liverpool depot.

Liam Gill died after climbing to the top of a rail wagon while trespassing with two friends in Allerton in 2009.

English, Welsh and Scottish Railways International (EWSI) was also told to pay £59,554 in costs at Liverpool Crown Court.

The court heard the group entered the depot via a gap in the boundary fence.

The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR), who brought the prosecution, said the depot contained a number of abandoned train wagons.

These wagons were kept beneath a live 25,000 volt overhead power line.

The ORR said Liam climbed on to the roof of a train wagon and was electrocuted and died of his injuries.

His friends, both aged 14, suffered severe burns during the incident.

Safety risks

The ORR said Liam's death was caused by EWSI's failure to manage risks at the site.

It said the judge found that EWSI was aware that trespassing was taking place at the depot, yet did not take sufficient steps to prevent it from happening.

Ian Raxton from the ORR said the incident "could have been prevented", as it was "totally unacceptable" to leave cables switched on in a depot known to be accessed by trespassers.

He added the group "should not have been trespassing", but there was "no excuse for companies to not take appropriate action against trespass".

The ORR confirmed enforcement action has been taken requiring the company to repair the fence and to turn off the power supply to the unused overhead lines.

In 2011, EWSI pleaded guilty to one charge under the Health and Safety at Work Act and one charge under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations.

A spokesperson for EWSI said: "Our thoughts remain with the family and friends of Liam Gill following the conclusion of court proceedings.

"We will continue to work with others in the rail industry and local communities to help educate children and young people on the dangers of trespassing on the railway."

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Yes.

EWS were aware of trespassers, but did nothing to prevent it. They left a gap in the boundary fence, and did nothing to fix it.

In short, they tried to ignore the problem but didn't get away with it this time.

 

[hluraven]

With the laws of the country as they are, it is the correct decision.

That said, it should not be a legal requirement to have fencing - it should be the personal responsibility of the boy not to knowingly trespass illegally. Many countries do not have fencing as a legal requirement, it is up to the public not to trespass and at their risk if they do.

 

[Prairie_5542]

Yes.

EWS were aware of trespassers, but did nothing to prevent it. They left a gap in the boundary fence, and did nothing to fix it.

In short, they tried to ignore the problem but didn't get away with it this time.

What measures could the company have done to prevent the trespassers gaining entry, apart from closing the gap in the fence? Security etc?

Were there signs up warning not to trespass? Would the wagons have had the 'warning overhead live wires' stickers on them? Was there a reason for not turning the power off?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

When you have land as dangerous as railway land it's quite reasonable to place the onus on the company to maintain a proper boundary fence. You wouldn't leave an airport runway unfenced would you?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What measures could the company have done to prevent the trespassers gaining entry, apart from closing the gap in the fence? Security etc?

Were there signs up warning not to trespass? Would the wagons have had the 'warning overhead live wires' stickers on them? Was there a reason for not turning the power off?

Well, making sure there's a proper fence is one way of stopping people wandering around!

According to the ORR the depot was also largely abandoned, so quite why they were leaving the OHLE was still live is anyone's guess.

 

[Trog]

According to the ORR the depot was also largely abandoned, so quite why they were leaving the OHLE was still live is anyone's guess.

Because if they turned it off it would have been stolen. :roll:

 

[Prairie_5542]

Because if they turned it off it would have been stolen. :roll:

Were they trying to steal the wires or just having a look around?

 

[chris89]

Looking at it they should have been for not making sure the site was secured. But do we know if that depot had a history of trespassing as well?

For the Wires i think the same thing as Trog as well.

Sadly also it comes down to a lack of common sense as well though, But then just my point of view though, As i was taught in school/ by parents treat all electrical wires as potential live and dangerous.

Chris

 

[Prairie_5542]

Looking at it they should have been for not making sure the site was secured. But do we know if that depot had a history of trespassing as well?

For the Wires i think the same thing as Trog as well.

Sadly also it comes down to a lack of common sense as well though, But then just my point of view though, As i was taught in school/ by parents treat all electrical wires as potential live and dangerous. Chris

Also the railway taught me this!

The death could have been prevented if there was no gap in the fence, security etc, but if there were no gaps in the fence and they climbed over the fence/cut a hole in in it, would there have been the same outcome for EWSI?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

British Railways Board v Herrington (1971) states that duty of care is owed to child trespassers regardless of circumstances.

15 months of Law has taught me something!

 

[Trog]

The death could have been prevented if there was no gap in the fence, security etc

Mend the fence today and it will be broken again tomorrow.

If you fence off a short cut people like to take or somewhere they want to get in, the fence will just be broken down again. It something where the Railway will never win.

 

[BestWestern]

This was clearly the 'right' outcome in terms of the company's liability. However, I can't help but agree that we are too keen to absolve idiots of any responsibility for their own actions. It's the old quote, along the lines of "it isn't enough to put a sign up to tell somebody not to do something, you have to put a fence up to actually physically prevent them from doing it." Says it all really.

Ian Raxton from the ORR said the incident "could have been prevented", as it was "totally unacceptable" to leave cables switched on in a depot known to be accessed by trespassers.

^ This is an utterly stupid thing to say however; there are many electrified depots which suffer from lowlife finding their way in, most of them fully operational. Does this mean we should isolate all the OHLE and third rail and push everything around with a shunter, just in case? Hell, why not remove the trains altogether, somebody might get run over! :roll:

 

[Prairie_5542]

The next thing will be ''Trespasser sues railway company for being run over by train!''

 

[bailey65]

Does this mean if some kids break into and trespass onto other sites like building sites or industrial premises and get killed or injured those companies will get sued?,the law in this country seems very back to front to say the least.

 

[northwichcat]

The death could have been prevented if there was no gap in the fence, security etc, but if there were no gaps in the fence and they climbed over the fence/cut a hole in in it, would there have been the same outcome for EWSI?

I'm surprised the name EWS is mentioned as they were renamed as DB Schenker UK Limited before the incident occurred.

At the time of the incident Network Rail blamed DB Schenker for the hole in the fence while DB Schenker said it wasn't their fence.

It looks like the court found that Network Rail were right in claiming it was DB Schenker's responsibility.

 

[pablo]

Yes, and quite possibly to the two Qs.
It's 'always' been the case that land and property owners are vicariously liable for invitees on their property. That means liable without fault and invitees includes the thief who steals your goods. The fact you didn't invite him is irrelevant.
So make sure your house insurance is good lest a roof tile falls off and kills your burglar!

 

[GB]

I didn't think it was like that?

I thought a burglar could only sue a homeowner if the homeowner intentionally injured the burglar with excessive force....and then only by permission of the courts.

 

[jon91]

What sort of wagons are stored in the yard where the incident happened?

 

[sprinterguy]

What sort of wagons are stored in the yard where the incident happened?

Looking at Google maps, lots of container flats, a few coal hoppers and the odd van.

Since the incident the depot has been refurbished and reopened by Northern to maintain it's class 156 fleet, and the wagons that were previously stored there have been relocated.

 

[maniacmartin]

This case shows that there is something seriously wrong with the law. In my eyes the trespassers are solely to blame for their own injuries.

 

[David Sinnett]

What I find strange is that its the ORR who brought the prosecution. I' d have thought the industry would stick together in the face of H&S and say the electricity is always on and they can't constantly check all fences for holes.

 

[work-traveller]

...an appropriate response would be to :

1) Compell EWS to rectify the boundary deficiency; and
2) Nothing else.

 

[GB]

Do we know how the fence came to be broken, when it was broken, to what extent was it broken and were EWSi aware that is was broken?

 

[John55]

What I find strange is that its the ORR who brought the prosecution. I' d have thought the industry would stick together in the face of H&S and say the electricity is always on and they can't constantly check all fences for holes.

From the ORR website...... "The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) is the independent safety and economic regulator for Britain's railways".

So you are asking the ORR to stand up to itself!

 

[David Sinnett]

Thanks. Live and learn......

 

[Greeny]

Like it or not, you will never stop determined kids getting into places where they shouldn’t be. I was involved in many fatalities and there was always some nut case casting round looking for things to blame the railways for. In one electrocution on the OLE a Coroner criticised the railways for a hole in the boundary fence when, in all likelihood, the deceased gained access through a wide open security gate because Railtrack and the TOC concerned would not pay for a security presence at the gate – a security presence that was there prior to privatisation. It was like watching a game of pass the parcel in the aftermath with people desperately scratching round looking for somewhere to offload the blame. In the case of Allerton depot, had the Company made the fence secure the kids could simply gain access from the station platforms or Allerton Cemetery, and no amount of CCTV could have prevented it.

When I was a kid (ok, I know – 200 years ago) if I got caught playing on the railway I’d have been murdered by my parents, but now parents first concern seems to be compensation because their brat has been traumatised by being chased or told off. I knew that railways were dangerous when I was 8 so what has changed now?, or are kids really that much more stupid?

And before the do-gooders jump on me yes, I think the railways should be obliged to fence against trespass. But there has to come a time when they simply cannot to do any more to protect people who should not be there.

 

[GadgetMan]

The end of platforms aren't always fenced meaning there is no physical barrier between public and the slope down to the ballast. So if someone walks down the slope onto the track and third rail, would that also be the railways fault?

 

[ryan125hst]

This case shows that there is something seriously wrong with the law. In my eyes the trespassers are solely to blame for their own injuries.

I totally agree with you there. It's sad that the child died and I feel sorry for his family, but he shouldn't have been in the depot in the first place.

I can't see how it is EWS's fault. Even if the fence was repaired, they would have found another way in. Surely if you are trespassing, you are in the wrong, so the company should have no responsibility to keep you safe.

Does this mean that if someone was trespassing on a main line and was hit and killed by a train, the company would be to blame?

 

[transmanche]

It's sad that the child died and I feel sorry for his family, but he shouldn't have been in the depot in the first place.

It is sad that a child died; but perhaps if his family had done a better job of teaching him that the railway was not a playground, he would still be alive today.

 

[6Gman]

Does this mean that if someone was trespassing on a main line and was hit and killed by a train, the company would be to blame?

Yes. If the company had been negligent in a way which contributed to the accident.